Individual rights

[Guest030824]

Individual rights are up for grabs. Why should I surrender my individual rights to some one else's individual rights? I have a right to associate with whom so ever I wish but another individual has demanded that I must observe their idea of what my rights will be. Using the fact I must have a business license the city tells me I must do business with whom ever they choose. Why must my rights be sacrificed to those of another. Remember they are called individual rights not the rights of the government.

[Guest123018-4]

You ask a very good question.
These same questions were asked by our founding fathers and it was determined that the government under which they were controlled, needed to be overthrown.
The sadness of it all is that all too many people do not understand what it truly means to live in a society of liberty that is not controlled by an overbearing, over reaching government.

[timpage]

Originally Posted by tucson

Individual rights are up for grabs. Why should I surrender my individual rights to some one else's individual rights? I have a right to associate with whom so ever I wish but another individual has demanded that I must observe their idea of what my rights will be. Using the fact I must have a business license the city tells me I must do business with whom ever they choose. Why must my rights be sacrificed to those of another. Remember they are called individual rights not the rights of the government.

Because you're not surrendering any individual rights. You're being prevented from exercising your discriminatory intolerant impulses.

Are you seriously advocating that you be allowed to refuse service to African-Americans because you may not like black folks? Or Jews because you're an anti-Semite? Or gays because you are a homophobe?

Incredible.

[Jackie S]

Originally Posted by timpage

Because you're not surrendering any individual rights. You're being prevented from exercising your discriminatory intolerant impulses.

Are you seriously advocating that you be allowed to refuse service to African-Americans because you may not like black folks? Or Jews because you're an anti-Semite? Or gays because you are a homophobe?

Incredible.

For the life of me, I can't understand what Indiana is thinking, or better put, why they are not thinking at all.

It seems assinine for a business that sells to the public to refuse to be of service for someone simply because they have a different belief than you. If two Queens want a wedding cake, sell them a damned wedding cake. Make it a good one, too. Their money spends, and they will tell their friends.

Why is it that the people who are always ready to throw the first stone are the very ones who follow the teachings of a Man who said,......."let him who is without sin throw the first stone".

When seemingly intelligent Christians act this foolishly, they are no better than the Radical Muslim chanting "death" to anyone who doesn't follow his Religion to the letter.

[Whirlaway]

Scenario:

I am one of 3 small pizza shops in a medium sized town. As part of my small business I do catering, which requires that I be at the event to provide service. Catering is a small part of my business income.

A gay couple walks into my pizza shop for a slice and a drink - I serve it up. No problem.

A week later that gay couple walks in and wants me to cater their wedding event. Maybe create some "gay themed" pizzas. I say I can't/won't (religious beliefs). I offer to make my regular pizzas for their event. But they have to pick them up. I politely tell them I won't be on site or create "gay themed" pizzas. I also tell them the ABC Pizza shop (across the street) can probably accommodate them. The gay couple refuses and files a discrimination suit, forcing me out of business.

That scenario should never happen. A law is needed to accommodate/protect conscientious religious objections.

[DSK]

Originally Posted by Whirlaway

Scenario:

I am one of 3 small pizza shops in a medium sized town. As part of my small business I do catering, which requires that I be at the event to provide service. Catering is a small part of my business income.

A gay couple walks into my pizza shop for a slice and a drink - I serve it up. No problem.

A week later that gay couple walks in and wants me to cater their wedding event. Maybe create some "gay themed" pizzas. I say I can't/won't. I offer to make my regular pizzas for their event. But they have to pick them up. I politely tell them I won't be on site or create "gay themed" pizzas. I also tell them the ABC Pizza shop (across the street) can probably accommodate them. The gay couple refuses and files a discrimination suit, forcing me out of business.

That scenario should never happen. A law is needed to accommodate/protect conscientious religious objections.

You are absolutely correct.

[DSK]

Originally Posted by Jackie S

For the life of me, I can't understand what Indiana is thinking, or better put, why they are not thinking at all.

It seems assinine for a business that sells to the public to refuse to be of service for someone simply because they have a different belief than you. If two Queens want a wedding cake, sell them a damned wedding cake. Make it a good one, too. Their money spends, and they will tell their friends.

Why is it that the people who are always ready to throw the first stone are the very ones who follow the teachings of a Man who said,......."let him who is without sin throw the first stone"
That same Jesus never advocated anyone tolerate homosexuality, did he?
When seemingly intelligent Christians act this foolishly, they are no better than the Radical Muslim chanting"death"to anyone who doesn't follow his Religion to the letter.

Under this concept you support, a Muslim could go to a gay owned bakery and force them to bake a cake which sez "All Gays Should Die" for their pre suicide attack party when they plan to bomb the next gay rights parade in their town.
They could force you to machine signs out of metal that say "Death to America"
Would you do that?

[Whirlaway]

+1

Originally Posted by DSK

Under this concept you support, a Muslim could go to a gay owned bakery and force them to bake a cake which sez "All Gays Should Die" for their pre suicide attack party when they plan to bomb the next gay rights parade in their town. They could force you to machine signs out of metal that say, "Death to America". Would you do that?

[Yssup Rider]

Fucking assholes!

Death to fuckin asholes. Unless, of course, said asshole is part of a gorgeous young lady.

But what would you know about that, rev. Whir-LIE-tired, and the DSKing?

[Yssup Rider]

Originally Posted by The2Dogs

You ask a very good question.
These same questions were asked by our founding fathers and it was determined that the government under which they were controlled, needed to be overthrown.
The sadness of it all is that all too many people do not understand what it truly means to live in a society of liberty that is not controlled by an overbearing, over reaching government.

Like the State of Indiana.

[Whirlaway]

The Indiana law is a state action. The founding fathers would embrace it. They feared/loathed over reaching, overbearing federalism.

Originally Posted by The2Dogs

You ask a very good question.
These same questions were asked by our founding fathers and it was determined that the government under which they were controlled, needed to be overthrown.
The sadness of it all is that all too many people do not understand what it truly means to live in a society of liberty that is not controlled by an overbearing, over reaching government.

[i'va biggen]

Originally Posted by Whirlaway

Scenario:

I am one of 3 small pizza shops in a medium sized town. As part of my small business I do catering, which requires that I be at the event to provide service. Catering is a small part of my business income.

A gay couple walks into my pizza shop for a slice and a drink - I serve it up. No problem.

A week later that gay couple walks in and wants me to cater their wedding event. Maybe create some "gay themed" pizzas. I say I can't/won't (religious beliefs). I offer to make my regular pizzas for their event. But they have to pick them up. I politely tell them I won't be on site or create "gay themed" pizzas. I also tell them the ABC Pizza shop (across the street) can probably accommodate them. The gay couple refuses and files a discrimination suit, forcing me out of business.

That scenario should never happen. A law is needed to accommodate/protect conscientious religious objections.

What about a Jewish, black or Asian couple ? How about a mixed marriage?Same thing?

[timpage]

Originally Posted by DSK

Under this concept you support, a Muslim could go to a gay owned bakery and force them to bake a cake which sez "All Gays Should Die" for their pre suicide attack party when they plan to bomb the next gay rights parade in their town.
They could force you to machine signs out of metal that say "Death to America"
Would you do that?

Ridiculous. Pretty much the same stupidity as Whirlytard's pizza analogy.

The response to both requests is "We don't offer that service or product."....or...."Our cheese penis forming device for the pizzas is broken and we can't get a replacement." Or, "Sorry, we're busy today. Get the fuck out of my place of business."

The flaw in both of your moronic posts is that you can't force a business to provide a service or a product like a cock-shaped pizza or a "Death to Gays" wedding cake.

Fucking idiots. You know, sometimes you guys say shit that makes sense....not very often, but sometimes. But, then you come up with utterly ridiculous, out in left field shit like this.....and it just makes everything you post seem stupid, unbelievable and silly.

[timpage]

Originally Posted by Whirlaway

The Indiana law is a state action. The founding fathers would embrace it. They feared/loathed over reaching, overbearing federalism.

Wait a minute. Your buddy in the other thread, and Rich Lowry of National Review, are justifying the passage of the bill by claiming (inaccurately, by the way) that the model for this legislation was signed into federal law by Bill Clinton.

So, which is it? You fucking dumbasses don't know whether you are coming or going on this one.....

[timpage]

Originally Posted by Jackie S

For the life of me, I can't understand what Indiana is thinking, or better put, why they are not thinking at all.

It seems assinine for a business that sells to the public to refuse to be of service for someone simply because they have a different belief than you. If two Queens want a wedding cake, sell them a damned wedding cake. Make it a good one, too. Their money spends, and they will tell their friends.

Why is it that the people who are always ready to throw the first stone are the very ones who follow the teachings of a Man who said,......."let him who is without sin throw the first stone".

When seemingly intelligent Christians act this foolishly, they are no better than the Radical Muslim chanting "death" to anyone who doesn't follow his Religion to the letter.

Spot on.

The one thing that the GOP ought to be proud of in this mess is that the market is going to correct it. The Indiana legislators and governor are looking for a way out now due to the condemnation from businesses around the nation and in Indiana itself. They have got to put this fire out before the Final Four.

It's all about the Benjamins.

Even Sir Charles is weighing in.....

>>>>>Charles Barkley is arguing the Final Four men’s basketball championship games should be moved out of Indiana because of the state’s new religious freedom law.
Critics charge that the law effectively legalizes discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people as long as that discrimination is rooted in religious justification.

“Discrimination in any form is unacceptable to me,” Barkley, the Hall of Fame NBA star and basketball commentator, told USA Today.
“As long as anti-gay legislation exists in any state, I strongly believe big events such as the Final Four and Super Bowl should not be held in those states’ cities.”

Barkley, who is commentating on the college basketball tournament, is just the latest critic of the state’s new law, which Gov. Mike Pence (R-Ind.) signed last week. The law says the government cannot “substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion” without a compelling interest.

The NCAA, which will host its men’s basketball Final Four tournament this week in Indianapolis, has already threatened to relocate future events, while Apple CEO Tim Cook compared it to Jim Crow laws in the South and the technology company Salesforce said it would cancel all mandated employee travel to the state. Connecticut Gov. Dannel Malloy (D) is expected to sign an executive order on Monday banning travel to states with similar laws, according to a representative with the governor's office.

Reggie Miller, another member of the basketball Hall of Fame who played for the Indiana Pacers, tweeted a statement criticizing the law.

Pence and others have defended the law as preventing government overreach, specifically citing the University of Notre Dame lawsuit over the Affordable Care Act’s requirements for contraception coverage.

Indiana Republican lawmakers said Monday that they would work to clarify the law and insisted they did not pass it with discriminatory intent. Pence has argued that all it does is codify a language similar to the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act into state law.

“This is about protecting the religious liberty of people of faith and families of faith across this country,” Pence said Sunday on ABC’s “This Week with George Stephanopoulos.”

“That's what it's been for more than 20 years,” Pence said.<<<<<<